Hi, Blair,
Von: Blair Zajac [mailto:bl...@orcaware.com]
> On 06/02/2013 10:53 PM, Markus Schaber wrote:
> > Hi, Blair,
> > Von: Blair Zajac [mailto:bl...@orcaware.com]
> >>> [Discussion whether to use (part of) C++ for SVN development]
> >>
> >> I agree it's not worth going to C++. Where I'm comi
On 06/02/2013 10:53 PM, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi, Blair,
Von: Blair Zajac [mailto:bl...@orcaware.com]
[Discussion whether to use (part of) C++ for SVN development]
I agree it's not worth going to C++. Where I'm coming from is a frustration
on the number of times I've seen pool lifetime bugs
Hi, Blair,
Von: Blair Zajac [mailto:bl...@orcaware.com]
> > [Discussion whether to use (part of) C++ for SVN development]
>
> I agree it's not worth going to C++. Where I'm coming from is a frustration
> on the number of times I've seen pool lifetime bugs get fixed and it would be
> great to be
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 04:23:22PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> I agree it's not worth going to C++. Where I'm coming from is a
> frustration on the number of times I've seen pool lifetime bugs get fixed
> and it would be great to be in a language where one doesn't need to worry
> about that, or
On 5/29/13 6:17 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Blair Zajac mailto:bl...@orcaware.com>> wrote:
Yup, I've had lots of issues with this. Putting C++ pool wrappers in C++
classes and having them destroy in the correct order can be tricky to get
right (lots
I'm pleased to see that everyone was able to spot
the Green Elephant, which kept everything else
well under the radar. Mission accomplished.
-- Stefan^2.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 30.05.2013 03:03,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 30.05.2013 03:03, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > ... one could stop thinking about memory management.
>
> Ha, ha, ha.
>
> I've heard that argument any number of times from C++ enthusiasts. I
> still get a kick from seeing their faces after they r
On 30.05.2013 03:03, Blair Zajac wrote:
> ... one could stop thinking about memory management.
Ha, ha, ha.
I've heard that argument any number of times from C++ enthusiasts. I
still get a kick from seeing their faces after they realize what a load
of it is when you actually get away from "Hello
On 29.05.2013 21:05, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Given I won't be at the Berlin hackathon, here's my thought on the C++
> topic [1].
>
> I'm generally in favor of a move to C++, it would be nice to get
> features that we work around now in C.
>
> Questions/issues:
>
> 1) How old g++ do we maintain? We ha
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Yup, I've had lots of issues with this. Putting C++ pool wrappers in C++
> classes and having them destroy in the correct order can be tricky to get
> right (lots of core dumps in our internal RPC server). One of the nice
> things about movi
On 05/29/2013 05:48 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Blair Zajac mailto:bl...@orcaware.com>> wrote:
I'm generally in favor of a move to C++, it would be nice to get
features that we work around now in C.
Rewriting even some of our core libraries to use C++
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> I'm generally in favor of a move to C++, it would be nice to get features
> that we work around now in C.
>
Rewriting even some of our core libraries to use C++ (even if it we kept
the existing C API) just doesn't seem to address any real pr
Given I won't be at the Berlin hackathon, here's my thought on the C++
topic [1].
I'm generally in favor of a move to C++, it would be nice to get
features that we work around now in C.
Questions/issues:
1) How old g++ do we maintain? We have RHEL 6 boxes that have 4.4.6, so
we wouldn't be
13 matches
Mail list logo
